No Guarantee of a Gun: How and Why the Second Amendment Means Exactly What It Says
The information in this book proves by means of credible and irrefutable documentary evidence that the Supreme Court's decision on June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual to possess and carry weapons, was incorrect. And the information in this book forms the foundation of what would have been the correct decision in that case.
Second Amendment commentary and case law are incorrect. But unfortunately, they are relied upon by today's scholars and jurists. However, this book, written in plain English instead of the legalese that many persons find unappealing about books pertaining to legal subjects, takes the bold step of disproving these incorrect authorities on the most controversial and puzzling provision of the United States Constitution, and it meets that challenge.
While other books on the Second Amendment rely largely on incorrect commentary and case law, this book uses credible and irrefutable documentary evidence to uncover the substance of the Second Amendment. By proving that Second Amendment commentary and case law are incorrect, this book will become both the preeminent treatise on the Second Amendment and a landmark book in the field of Constitutional law. And while gun control has been a highly controversial issue for a long time, the debate on gun control has been improperly bifurcated into what is good public policy and what is Constitutional. This book eliminates the Constitutional component of that debate so that the debate can be focused solely on what is good public policy.
Other books written on the Second Amendment propose incorrect theories or attempt to reconcile its two supposed clauses. However, this book is the best book ever written on the Second Amendment because it does what no other book has ever done. It uncovers, by means of documentary evidence instead of mere argument, the true meanings of the terms A well regulated Militia, people, keep, and bear arms.
Results 1-5 of 84
In Ex parte Grossman (1925), the Supreme Court stated The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and ...
... keep and bear arms on both sides of the argument places too much emphasis on history, the intent of the Framers, and textual analysis, while trying to divine the Supreme Court's thinking on an issue it has never directly addressed.
1001] Roger I. Roots (2000) came right out and said that courts should heed public opinion in their ... Ogden (1824), the Supreme Court stated As men whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the words which most ...
Heller (2008), a challenge to a gun-control law, the Supreme Court, after completing an analysis of the text of the Second Amendment, stated Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual ...
It is conceivable that the Supreme Court might hold that the militia it discussed in United States v. Miller no longer exists in this age of military professionalism, and that therefore the second amendment protects nothing at all.
What people are saying - Write a review
PART III TYING UP LOOSE ENDS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
PART IV THE SECOND AMENDMENT VIOLATION AND CLAIM